Nonoperative Management Of Splenic Injuries Research Articles

Surgical Treatment versus Conservative Management of Splenic Rupture: Outcomes and Risk Factors.

This study aimed to evaluate the outcome and risk factors in operative and non-operative management of splenic injury. This cross-sectional study was conducted on patients with traumatic splenic injuries who were hospitalized in Kashani Hospital (Isfahan, Iran) from 2017 to 2019. The studied variables were extracted from the medical records of the enrolled participants. The outcomes such as mortality complications and risk factors were compared based on treatment methods. A total of 240 patients were investigated. The mean age of the patients was 29.8±12.2, with 180 (77.5%) patients being men. 154 (64.2%) patients underwent operative treatment. The mortality rate was 18.9% and 4.6% among operative and non-operative groups (p<0.001). Complications were observed in 11.5% and 46.1% of non-operative and operative groups, respectively (p<0.001). Operative treatment inversely correlated with mortality (p<0.001) and complications (p<0.05). Splenic injury severity was correlated positively with mortality (p<0.001) and negatively with complications (p<0.001). Unstable hemodynamic status was positively correlated with complications (p<0.001). Age had a positive correlation with mortality (p<0.001) and complications (p<0.001). Male sex had a negative correlation with complications (p<0.001). GCS score and admission were positively correlated with mortality (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant correlation between correlated injuries and outcomes (p≥0.05). Patients who received surgery had higher rates of mortality and complications. However, after controlling for confounders, operative treatment was found to be inversely correlated with mortality and complications.

Splenic abscess due to non-operative management of splenic injury: a case report

BackgroundSplenic abscess is a rare disease, with incidence of 0.2–0.7% in previous studies. It often appears with left upper quadrant abdominal pain, fever, chills. Splenic abscess often happens because of hematogenous spreading of infections, endocarditis, angioembolization and some other rare reasons. Treatment relies on one of these two methods: percutaneous drainage or surgery.Case presentationA 68-year-old diabetic Asian female (Asian woman) presented with generalized abdominal pain, low blood pressure, tachycardia, fever, lethargy and elevated level of blood sugar. She had history of conservative therapy in intensive care unit due to blunt abdominal trauma and splenic injury. She had a huge splenic abscess in ultrasonography and computed tomography scan so she went under splenectomy. Our patient had a splenic abscess without performing any intervention like angioembolization.ConclusionImmune compromised patients who are selected for nonoperative management after splenic injury need close follow up and evaluating about abscess formation for at least 2 weeks. Early diagnosis and treatment with two methods including percutaneous drainage or splenectomy should be considered and it depends on patient’s risk factors, vital signs, general conditions and presence or absence of sepsis.

EGS P03 Selective non-operative management of high grade splenic injuries is safe in both the short and long term

Abstract Background Blunt and penetrating splenic injuries represent a significant component of the workload in major trauma centres in the UK. International guidelines recommend intervention for patients suffering high grade injuries. This single centre retrospective cohort study assessed current management of adults with splenic injuries, stratified by World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classification, and compared this to the recommended management proposed by the WSES guidelines. Methods Patients admitted between April 2014 to January 2021 to a major trauma centre with splenic injuries were prospectively assessed. Data on AAST grade, WSES class, radiological imaging, definitive interventions performed, length of admission, follow-up imaging and short and long-term outcome were collected. Results 143 patients with splenic injuries were admitted during the study period. 5 patients were excluded due to inadequate clinical information. 138 patients with splenic injury were analysed. 50 suffered WSES grade 1 injuries, 25 WSES grade 2, 18 WSES grade 3 and 45 WSES grade 4. Patients with WSES grade 3 and 4 injuries were managed as follows: conservative 13, angioembolisation 38 and splenectomy 12. Length of stay did not differ between groups. No patient undergoing non-operative management required salvage splenectomy. One patient undergoing angioembolisation required laparoscopic drainage of splenic abscess secondary to infarction. During the study period 4 patients died (2.7)%. The cause of death in each case was due to other injuries. Long term imaging follow up was organised in 31 patients undergoing angioembolisation. 30 patients (97%) had imaging features suggestive of perfused splenic tissue. Conclusions Conservative management of splenic injuries with the addition of angioembolisation for high grade injuries led to a splenectomy rate of less than 10% in this study. This strategy led to low morbidity with only one patient requiring subsequent intervention and no splenic injury related mortality. This study validates the increasing trend towards non-operative management for splenic injuries.

Readmission after splenic salvage: How real is the risk?

BackgroundHemorrhage due to delayed splenic rupture is a potentially fatal complication of nonoperative management of splenic injuries. Suboptimal postdischarge follow-up has made measuring the incidence of failed splenic salvage challenging. We hypothesized that readmission after splenic salvage is rare; however, readmissions for splenic conditions would be associated with a high rate of splenectomy. MethodsThe National Readmission Database for 2016 and 2017 was queried for trauma admissions with the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision codes for splenic injury. Patients with missing discharge disposition, discharge to a short-term hospital, death during index admission, or admitted in December were excluded. The primary endpoint was nonelective 30-day readmission for splenic diagnoses after nonoperative management during the index admission. Outcomes collected included transfusions, complications, interventions at readmission, and mortality. ResultsThere were 22,736 patients admitted for a traumatic splenic injury; 15,596 (68.6%) underwent no intervention, 2,261 (9.9%) were treated with embolization only, and 4,509 (19.8%) underwent splenectomy. The overall 30-day readmission rate was 8.4%, whereas the spleen-related readmission rate was 2.0%. For those treated with embolization or no intervention, the spleen-related 30-day readmission rate was 2.4%, with the majority (69.4%) occurring within 7 days of discharge. The most common complications were pleural effusion (23.0%), sepsis (4.4%), splenic abscess (3.9%), and splenic infarct (3.0%). Those patients readmitted for spleen-related diagnoses after undergoing splenic salvage during the index admission had a 22.3% rate of splenectomy and mortality of 1.6%. ConclusionReadmission after splenic salvage is rare, with the majority presenting within 1 week of discharge. However, of those readmitted for spleen injury–related diagnoses there was a high rate of splenectomy. Patients managed with splenic salvage should be counseled on the risk of potential failure and need for readmission and operation after discharge.

Non-Operative Management of Splenic Injuries (NOMSI) in a Limited Resources Setup

Non-Operative Management of Splenic Injuries (NOMSI) in a Limited Resources Setup

Injuries to the Spleen and Diaphragm

The spleen is one of the most commonly injured abdominal organs in blunt trauma patients. The mechanisms of injury are similar to those seen with liver injuries: motor vehicle collisions, automobile-pedestrian collisions, falls, and any type of penetrating injury. Stab wounds to the abdomen are less likely to cause spleen injury compared with liver injury due to the spleen’s protected location. Stab wounds to the spleen typically result in direct linear tears, whereas gunshot wounds result in significant cavitary injuries. This review covers injuries to the spleen and injuries to the diaphragm. Figures show findings on imaging that may be associated with failure of nonoperative management for splenic injuries, intraparenchymal splenic blush noted on an initial computed tomographic scan, the first step in mobilizing the spleen by making an incision in the peritoneum and the endoabdominal fascia, beginning at the inferior pole and continuing posteriorly and superiorly, splenorrhaphy performed using interrupted mattress sutures through pledgets along the raw edge of the spleen, left diaphragm ruptures evident with the gastric bubble located in the left hemithorax, whereas right-sided ruptures present with the appearance of an elevated hemidiaphragm, and the use of Allis clamps to approximate the diaphragmatic edges, with the defect closed with a running No. 1 polypropylene suture. The table lists American Association for the Surgery of Trauma organ injury scales for diaphragm and spleen. This review contains 6 figures, 1 table, and 55 references Keywords: spleen, injury grading, angioembolization, splenorrhaphy, splenic salvage

Predictors for Failure of Non-operative Management of Splenic Injuries

Non-operative management of splenic injuries is the standard of treatment of splenic injuries in hemodynamically stable patients. The present study aimed to investigate the outcome of non-operative management versus surgical management of splenic injuries and to determine the predictors for failure of non-operative management in a setting where selective arterial embolization is not available. This was a case series analysis of patients with splenic injuries who were treated with non-operative management or surgical exploration. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine the predictors for failure of non-operative management. Ninety-one patients (78 men and 13 women) were included to this study. Forty (44%) patients were managed with non-operative management, and 51 (56%) were managed surgically. The mean hospital stay of the two groups was similar (p = 0.72). Failure of non-operative management was recorded in 14 (35%) patients. Complications related to splenic trauma were detected in 7 (17.5%) patients in the non-operative management group and 16 (31.4%) in the surgical treatment group (p = 0.2). Predictors for failure of non-operative management were age (p = 0.004), total leucocyte count (p = 0.0004), platelet count (p = 0.0002), and associated extra-abdominal injuries (p = 0.045). The only significant independent predictor for failure of non-operative management was associated extra-abdominal injuries (OR 4.4; p = 0.04). Non-operative management of splenic injuries is feasible and associated with favorable outcome. Age, total leucocyte count, platelet count, and extra-abdominal injuries may predict failure of non-operative management and warrant surgical intervention.

Nonoperative management of splenic injury in closely monitored patients with reduced consciousness is safe and feasible

BackgroundTreatment of blunt splenic injury has changed over the past decades. Nonoperative management (NOM) is the treatment of choice. Adequate patient selection is a prerequisite for successful NOM. Impaired mental status is considered as a relative contra indication for NOM. However, the impact of altered consciousness in well-equipped trauma institutes is unclear. We hypothesized that impaired mental status does not affect outcome in patients with splenic trauma.MethodsOur prospectively composed trauma database was used and adult patients with blunt splenic injury were included during a 14-year time period. Treatment guidelines remained unaltered over time. Patients were grouped based on the presence (Group GCS: < 14) or absence (Group GCS: 14–15) of impaired mental status. Outcome was compared.ResultsA total of 161 patients were included, of whom 82 were selected for NOM. 36% of patients had a GCS-score < 14 (N = 20). The median GCS-score in patients with reduced consciousness was 9 (range 6–12). Groups were comparable except for significantly higher injury severity scores in the impaired mental status group (19 vs. 17, p = 0.007). Length of stay (28 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001) and ICU-stay (8 vs. 0 days, p = 0.005) were longer in patients with decreased GCS-scores. Failure of NOM, total splenectomy rates, complications and mortality did not differ between both study groups.ConclusionThis study shows that NOM for blunt splenic trauma is a viable treatment modality in well-equipped institutions, regardless of the patients mental status. However, the presence of neurologic impairment is associated with prolonged ICU-stay and hospitalization. We recommend, in institutions with adequate monitoring facilities, to attempt nonoperative management for blunt splenic injury, in all hemodynamically stable patients without hollow organ injuries, also in the case of reduced consciousness.

Changes in splenic capsule with aging; beliefs and reality

BackgroundResearch describing the splenic capsule and its effect on non-operative management of splenic injuries is limited. The aim of this study is to identify the current beliefs about the splenic capsule thickness and investigate changes in the splenic capsule with age. MethodsTrauma Medical Directors were surveyed on their beliefs regarding splenic capsule thickness changes with age. Thicknesses of cadaveric splenic capsule samples were measured. ResultsThe majority of trauma medical directors (59%) believe the capsule thickness decreases with age. There were 94 splenic specimens obtained. The splenic capsules of infants were thin and had a uniform layer of elastin fibers. With aging, the capsule becomes thick and develops a collagen layer. ConclusionMost trauma directors believe the splenic capsule thickness decreases with age. However, our results demonstrate that the splenic capsule thickness increases during childhood but remains constant in adulthood.

Failure of Nonoperative Management of Splenic Injuries in Trauma Patients on Anticoagulation

Although nonoperative management or embolization with preservation of splenic tissue is preferable, there is a significant risk of continued bleeding ultimately requiring splenectomy. It has been established that elderly patients on anticoagulation (AC) have an increased risk of splenic injury, but there are little data to show whether AC plays a role in outcomes of splenic injury in the setting of trauma. This is a retrospective cohort study, including 168 adults aged 50 to 79 years who presented as a trauma patient to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2018. The primary outcome is the management of the splenic injury. Of the 168 patients, 30 were presently taking AC at the time of their injury, and 138 were not taking any AC. These groups were similar in average Injury Severity Score, average grade of splenic injury, and average systolic blood pressure on arrival. However, the groups differed significantly in age and hemoglobin on arrival. We found that patients taking AC at the time of injury underwent splenectomy 23.3 per cent of the time, whereas patients not taking AC underwent splenectomy 11.6 per cent of the time (P = 0.045). Patients taking AC failed nonoperative management 20 per cent of the time, whereas patients not taking AC failed 0.7 per cent of the time (P < 0.05). We found that patients taking AC at the time of their traumatic injury were more likely to undergo splenectomy than patients not taking AC. We also found that patients taking AC were more likely to fail nonoperative management.

Hospital level variations in the trends and outcomes of the nonoperative management of splenic injuries \u2013 a nationwide cohort study

BackgroundThe long-term treatment trends of splenic injuries can provide guidance when treating trauma patients. The nonoperative management (NOM) of splenic injuries was introduced in early 1989. After decades of development, it has proven to be safe and is now the primary treatment choice worldwide. However, there remains a lack of nationwide registry data to support the feasibility and efficiency of NOM.MethodsWe used the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database to conduct a whole population-based cohort study. Patients admitted with blunt splenic injuries from 2002 to 2013 were identified. Demographic data, management methods, associated injuries, comorbidities and outcome parameters were collected. Patients were divided into 2 groups by the type of admitting institution: a tertiary center or a non-center hospital. We also used 4 years as an interval to analyze the changes in epidemiological data and treatment trends. Comparisons of the results of NOM and surgical management were also performed.ResultsA total of 12,455 patients were admitted with blunt splenic injuries between 2002 and 2013. Among the 11,551 patients treated in a single hospital after admission, patients underwent NOM more frequently at tertiary centers than at non-center hospitals (64.6% vs 50.3%). During the 12-year study period, the NOM rate increased from 56 to 73% in tertiary centers, while in noncenter hospitals, the rate only increased from 43 to 58%. The mortality rate decreased in tertiary centers from 8.9 to 7.2%, with no apparent change in noncenter hospitals. Complications occurred more frequently in the surgical management group.ConclusionThere is a trend toward the use of NOM for blunt splenic injury treatments, and the outcomes from the NOM groups were not inferior to those of the operation group. In addition, tertiary centers performed more NOM than did non-center hospitals and better met the international consensus.

Disparities in the management of paediatric splenic injury.

The non-operative management of splenic injury in children is recommended widely, and is possible in over 95 per cent of episodes. Practice appears to vary between centres. The Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database was interrogated to determine the management of isolated paediatric splenic injuries in hospitals in England and Wales. Rates of non-operative management, duration of hospital stay, readmission and mortality were recorded. Management in paediatric surgical hospitals was compared with that in adult hospitals. Between January 2000 and December 2015 there were 574 episodes. Children treated in a paediatric surgical hospital had a 95·7 per cent rate of non-operative management, compared with 75·5 per cent in an adult hospital (P < 0·001). Splenectomy was done in 2·3 per cent of children in hospitals with a paediatric surgeon and in 17·2 per cent of those treated in an adult hospital (P < 0·001). There was a significant difference in the rate of non-operative management in children of all ages. There was some improvement in non-operative management in adult hospitals in the later part of the study, but significant ongoing differences remained. The management of children with isolated splenic injury is different depending on where they are treated. The rate of non-operative management is lower in hospitals without a paediatric surgeon present.

Conservative Versus Operative Management of Blunt Splenic Injuries

Background: The spleen is the most frequently injured organ in blunt abdominal trauma, mainly because of its highly vascularized parenchyma and its anatomic location. In the past the management of blunt splenic injuries was splenectomy, but high rate of operative complications caused paradigm shift from operative to non-operative management (NOM) in hemodynamically stable blunt abdominal trauma patients. Now, nonoperative management of hemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injuries is the standard of care and has been proven to be safe and successful in the acute setting. The advent of newer imaging techniques with high resolution CT scanners has enabled the clinicians to exactly diagnose the extent of intra-abdominal organ injury. Objective: This work aim to compare between operative and conservative management of splenic trauma. Methodology: Total numbers of patients in this study were 20 patients classified in two groups, the first group contained12 patients and the other group contained 8 patients. The First group was managed conservative and the second was managed operative with splenectomy and splenoraphy. The first group of patients consisted of 9 males (75%) and 3 female (25%). The second group of patients consisted of 6 males (75%) and 2 females (25%). Results: In this study, bunt splenic injury was found to be more common in males because of their risky and hard work. RTA and Falling from a height were found to be the most common causes of blunt abdominal injuries. According to CT, grade one and two of splenic injury are more common than other grades of splenic injury. As regard complication the operative management has more complication as postoperative wound infection and postoperative chest infection. So, NOM of splenic injury is the management of choice in haemodynamically stable patients. Conclusion: The nonoperative management is considered the ideal management for blunt splenic injuries due to less complication, less blood transfusion, less hospital stay and less mortality than operative management.

Pediatric vs Adult Trauma Centers: Closing the Gap in Nonoperative Management of Splenic Injury: A National Trauma Data Bank Study

Pediatric vs Adult Trauma Centers: Closing the Gap in Nonoperative Management of Splenic Injury: A National Trauma Data Bank Study

Assessment of blunt splenic trauma: Which imaging scoring system is superior?

Background:Spleen is the most common viscera that may be hurt in blunt abdominal trauma. Operative or nonoperative management of splenic injury is a dilemma. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) is the most common grading system which has been used for the management of blunt splenic injuries. The new recommended grading system assesses other aspects of splenic injury such as contrast extravasation, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, and severity of hemoperitoneum, as well. The aim of this study is to compare and prioritize the cutoff of AAST grading system with the new recommended one.Materials and Methods:This is a cross-sectional study on patients with splenic injury caused by abdominal blunt trauma referred to Isfahan University of Medical Sciences affiliated Hospitals, Iran, in 2013–2016. All patients underwent abdominopelvic computed tomography scanning with intravenous (IV) contrast. All images were reported by a single expert radiologist, and splenic injury grading was reported based on AAST and the new recommended system. Then, all patients were followed to see if they needed surgical or nonsurgical management.Results:Based on the findings of this study conducted on 68 patients, cutoff point of Grade 2, in AAST system, had 90.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73–0.97) specificity, 51.4% (95% CI: 0.34–0.67) sensitivity, 86.4% (95% CI: 0.64–0.95) positive predictive value (PPV), and 60.9% (95% CI: 0.45–0.74) negative predictive value (NPV) for prediction of surgical management requirement, while it was 90.3% (95% CI: 0.73–0.97) specificity, 45.9% (95% CI: 0.29–0.63) sensitivity, 85% (95% CI: 0.61–0.96) PPV, and 58.3% (95% CI: 0.43–0.72) NPV for the new system (P = 0.816).Conclusion:In contrast to the previous studies, the new splenic injury grading method was not superior to AAST. Further studies with larger populations are recommended.

The incidence of delayed splenic bleeding in pediatric blunt trauma

BackgroundOne of the concerns associated with nonoperative management of splenic injury in children has been delayed splenic bleed (DSB) after a period of hemostasis. This study evaluates the incidence of DSB from a multicenter 3-year prospective study of blunt splenic injuries (BSI). MethodsA 3-year prospective study was done to evaluate nonoperative management of pediatric (≤18years) BSI presenting to one of 10 pediatric trauma centers. Patients were tracked at 14 and 60days. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient and injury characteristics. ResultsDuring the study period, 508 children presented with BSI. Median age was 11.6 [IQR: 7.0, 14.8]; median splenic injury grade was 3 [IQR: 2, 4]. Nonoperative management was successful in 466 (92%) with 18 (3.5%) patients undergoing splenectomy at the index admission, all within 3h of injury. No patient developed a delayed splenic bleed. At least one follow-up visit was available for 372 (73%) patients. ConclusionA prior single institution study suggested that the incidence of DSB was 0.33%. Based on our results, we believe that the rate may be less than 0.2%. Level of evidenceLevel II, Prognosis.

Overview of Nonoperative Blunt Splenic Injury Management with Associated Splenic Artery Pseudoaneurysm

The delayed development of splenic artery pseudoaneurysm (SAP) can complicate the nonoperative management of splenic injuries. We sought to determine the utility of repeat imaging in diagnosing SAP in patients managed nonoperatively without angioembolization. We hypothesized that a significant rate of SAPs would be found in this population on repeat imaging. Patients undergoing nonoperative splenic injury management from January 2011 to June 2015 were queried from the trauma registry. Rates of repeat imaging, angioembolization, readmission, and SAP development were analyzed. Further, subanalyses investigating the incidence of SAP in patients managed nonoperatively without angioembolization were conducted. A total of 133 patients met inclusion criteria. Repeat imaging rate was 40 per cent, angioembolization rate was 26 per cent, and readmission rate was 6 per cent. Within the study population, nine SAPs were found (8/9 in patients with splenic injury grade ≥III). Of these nine SAPs, three (33%) were identified on initial scans and embolized, whereas six (67%) were found on repeat imaging in patients not initially receiving angioembolization. Splenic injuries are typically managed nonoperatively without serious complications. Our results suggest patients with splenic injuries grade ≥III managed nonoperatively without angioembolization should have repeat imaging within 48 hours to rule out the possibility of SAP.

Splenic artery embolization: technically feasible but not necessarily advantageous.

BackgroundThe spleen is the second most commonly injured organ in cases of abdominal trauma. Management of splenic injury depends on the clinical status of the patient and can include nonoperative management (NOM), splenic artery embolization (SAE), surgery (operative splenic salvage or splenectomy), or a combination of these treatments. In nonoperatively managed cases, SAE is sometimes used to control haemorrhage. However, the indications for SAE have not been clearly defined and, in some cases, the potential complications of the procedure may outweigh its benefits.Review of the literatureThrough review of the literature we address the question of when SAE is indicated in combination with NOM of splenic injury, and whether SAE may delay needed surgical treatment in some cases. This systematic review highlighted the use of imperfect and inconsistent scoring systems in the diagnosis of splenic injury, the lack of consensus regarding indications for SAE, and the potential for severe morbidities associated with this procedure. Based on current literature and evidence we provide a new, non-verified, decision algorithm.ConclusionsNOM+ SAE involves potential risks and operative management may be preferable to SAE for certain patients. To clarify current literature, we propose a new algorithm for blunt abdominal trauma that should be validated prospectively. New evidence-based protocols should be developed to guide diagnosis and management of patients with splenic trauma.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13017-016-0100-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nonoperative management of splenic injuries: significance of age

BackgroundIn the nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt splenic injuries (BSI), the clinical relevance of age as a risk factor has not been well studied. MethodsUsing the 2011 National Trauma Data Bank data set, age was analyzed both as a continuous variable and a categorical variable (group 1 [13–54 y], group 2 [55–74 y], and group 3 [≥75 y]). BSI severity was stratified by abbreviated injury scale (AIS): group 1 (AIS ≤2), group 2 (AIS 3), and group 3 (AIS ≥4). A semiparametric proportional odds model was used to model NOM outcomes and effects due to age and BSI severity. ResultsOf 15,113 subjects, 15.3% failed NOM. The odds of failure increased by a factor of 1.014 for each year of age, or factor of 1.5 for groups 2 and 3 each. BSI severity groups 2 and 3 had increases in the odds of failure by factors of 3.9 and 13, respectively, compared with those of group 1. Most failures occurred by 48 h irrespective of age. The effect of age was most pronounced in age groups 2 and 3 with the most severe BSI, where a NOM failure rate of >50% was seen. Both age and failure of NOM were independent predictors of mortality. ConclusionsAge is associated with failure of NOM but its effect seems more clinically relevant only in high-grade BSI. Factors that could influence NOM success in elderly patients with high-grade injuries deserve further study.

Nonoperative management of splenic injury in combat: 2002-2012.

Selective nonoperative management of combat-related blunt splenic injury (BSI) is controversial. We evaluated the impact of the November 2008 blunt abdominal trauma clinical practice guideline that permitted selective nonoperative management of some patients with radiological suggestion of hemoperitoneum on implementation of nonoperative management (NOM) of splenic injury in austere environments. Retrospective evaluation of patients with splenic injuries from November 2002 through January 2012 in Iraq and Afghanistan was performed. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes identified patients as laparotomy with splenectomy, or NOM. Delayed operative management had no operative intervention at earlier North American Treaty Organization (NATO) medical treatment facilities (MTFs), and had a definitive intervention at a latter NATO MTFs. Intra-abdominal complications and overall mortality were juxtaposed. A total of 433 patients had splenic injuries from 2002 to 2012. Initial NOM of BSI from 2002 to 2008 compared to 2009-2012 was 44.1% and 47.2%, respectively (p=0.75). Delayed operative management and NOM completion had intra-abdominal complication and mortality rates of 38.1% and 9.1% (p<0.01), and 6.3% and 8.1% (p=0.77). Despite high-energy explosive injuries, NATO Role II MTFs radiological constraints and limited medical resources, hemodynamically normal patients with BSI and low abdominal abbreviated injury scores underwent NOM in austere environments.